Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly endorsed the text in Criterion 5 as adequate to address the issue. Regarding Criterion 2, <br />he said he did not feel strongly about the issue, but if the most one could undersize a ward was <br />three percent, there was no way to address 40 percent growth. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with the five percent differential in Criterion 1 and did not think that it would be <br />easy to reduce. He thought it would also be useful in accomplishing the second criterion. He <br />wanted to consider neighborhood boundaries to the extent possible, noting some were quite large <br />and did not share commonalities from boundary to boundary. He thought geographic boundaries <br />should be considered, saying that neighborhoods and geography were generally what defined <br />cities. He thought that Criterion 5 was well-written. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that square wards were not the answer to redistricting because such a <br />configuration did not ensure commonalities between residents. He thought that the criterion <br />"danced around" the issue of incumbency, as it should. He said that redistricting was a ten-year <br />plan that should look to the future. He did not support an approach that meant his ward was <br />redistricted in such a way to include his house to maintain his incumbency. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey termed the redistricting process a political decision. He thought the process a very <br />important time for each councilor to set aside their personal interests and to act for the future. <br />Mayor Torrey said that the council also needed to look at the issue of incumbency. He suggested <br />as a possible solution that all councilors and the mayor run for election on the ten-year <br />anniversary of redistricting to avoid the issue of who could run. Everyone would live somewhere <br />in the city. He did not want the decision to be based on a councilor's personal interests, but on <br />the best interests of the community. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey was concerned about political advantages created by ward redistricting. He <br />suggested that councilors consider election results in the past to make sure it was acting in the <br />best interests of the citizens. He said that if the council wanted to cross the river, it needed to <br />consider crossing the river along its entire length, not just in one ward. Should there be eight <br />east-to-west wards? He thought that was reasonable. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner believed that whatever the council did regarding redistricting would be construed as <br />political. He said that council could adopt any set of criteria, which could result in 1,000 possible <br />maps. He wanted to capture a picture of the community at a point in time to ensure equal <br />representation. He questioned whether the five percent range could withstand a court challenge. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not want a criterion that protected incumbents or one that was designed to <br />eliminate them as he thought either a blatantly political approach. <br /> <br />Regarding Criterion 3, Mr. Meisner noted the many neighborhood groups that were part of Ward 7. <br />He did not think there was a single intact neighborhood group in his ward. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought it important to have intact neighborhood association boundaries within wards to <br />the degree possible and hoped the criterion would improve the current situation. He said that the <br />less division there was, the easier it was for councilors to attend neighborhood association <br />meetings on a regular basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reword Criterion 4 as follows: <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />